NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Wednesday reserved its decision regarding Justice Yashwant Varma’s challenge to an in-house inquiry panel’s report that found him culpable in the cash discovery matter.The bench, comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and A G Masih, said that the Chief Justice of India has the authority to inform the president and prime minister if evidence suggests judicial misconduct, PTI reported. The recommendation sought the judge’s removal following an in-house inquiry committee’s report that implicated him in connection with cash discoveries at his official residence.The court questioned Justice Varma’s decision to participate in the in-house inquiry committee proceedings without contesting its validity at that stage and said “Your conduct does not inspire confidence, why did you appear before committee.”The apex court noted that Justice Varma should have approached them sooner to contest the in-house inquiry panel’s findings.“Whether to proceed or not proceed is a political decision. But judiciary has to send a message to the society that process has been followed,” the bench observed.Justice Varma’s counsel, Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, argued that the panel’s suggestion for his client’s removal violated constitutional principles.Sibal emphasised to the court that establishing such a precedent for removal proceedings would be problematic.The proceedings continue.The Supreme Court criticised advocate Mathews J. Nedumpara for requesting an FIR registration against Justice Varma.Justice Dipankar Datta interrogated Nedumpara regarding whether he had filed a formal police complaint prior to requesting the FIR registration.The court reserved judgement on Nedumpara’s separate petition requesting FIR registration.Justice Varma has challenged the May 8 recommendation from then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna, who had requested Parliament to begin impeachment proceedings. In his submission, Justice Varma argued that the inquiry inappropriately shifted the burden of proof, requiring him to investigate and refute the allegations against him.Justice Varma claimed the panel’s conclusions were predetermined, stating that the inquiry’s timeline was hastened merely to conclude proceedings quickly, compromising procedural fairness.The petition argued that the inquiry panel reached unfavourable conclusions without providing him an adequate opportunity for defence.
